It almost looks like the payload gets stuck on the clamps of the strongback for a bit before falling. The rest of the rocket seemed to be gone when it became visible. Which appears to be what caused the top of the strongback to bend down. Crazy.
[QUOTE=OvB;50984835]It almost looks like the payload gets stuck on the clamps of the strongback for a bit before falling. The rest of the rocket seemed to be gone when it became visible. Which appears to be what caused the top of the strongback to bend down. Crazy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the fuel in the sat didn't seem to detonate until it hit the ground though. I guess that's good for any knock on effects that this will have on the commercial crew program, Dragon 2 should of been able to abort successfully.
[QUOTE=Pelf;50984814]One thing to note is that Antares came down [url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/17/article-urn:publicid:ap.org:b177e4768dd34b1293dd2822a2253d23-6UtoGe9PVHSK2-119_634x383.jpg]next to the pad[/url], whereas this F9 exploded on top of the pad, so the F9 will probably have done more damage.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there's a bunch of factors (Falcon 9 FT is slightly bigger, was directly on the pad, had zero momentum, Antares had a solid stage that probably exploded harder, Canaveral is generally more spaced-out than Wallops, SpaceX has active construction work so less spinup time) but it should be within an order of magnitude. That's why I said 6-18 months - the exact number matters less than the number of zeroes at the end.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50984635]How does this relate to this thread.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if you read the thread you'd realize
Over worked and underpaid employees don't always yield the best results
[QUOTE=Zombii;50984106]Title is misleading. We don't know at this point that it was the rocket that was at fault. While the evidence suggests[B] it was a payload failure[/B], theres no way to tell at the moment until SpaceX or the cape releases a cause officially[/QUOTE]
Because communications satellites spontaneously combust?
There have now been press releases that confirm the statements made, and affirm the title.
It appears that the failure was in the second stage whilst the propellant was being loaded (well detailed above).
[QUOTE=Bradyns;50985510]Because communications satellites spontaneously combust?
There have now been press releases that confirm the statements made, and affirm the title.
It appears that the failure was in the second stage whilst the propellant was being loaded (well detailed above).[/QUOTE]
Yeah there's no way it had much to do with the payload, at all. Anything it has to do with the payload is outside of the scope of our conjecture based on the information presently available to us. As noted, the payload stayed clamped to the strongback until after the rest of the rocket had pretty much vaporized under it.
So, that line of reasoning suggests one failed to even watch the video or read much of the news around this accident.
[QUOTE=paindoc;50985543]Yeah there's no way it had much to do with the payload, at all. Anything it has to do with the payload is outside of the scope of our conjecture based on the information presently available to us. As noted, the payload stayed clamped to the strongback until after the rest of the rocket had pretty much vaporized under it.
So, that line of reasoning suggests one failed to even watch the video or read much of the news around this accident.[/QUOTE]
I phrased my first sentence as a question for rhetorical purposes - that is to say, [B][U]clearly[/U][/B] it wasn't the payload.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;50985510]Because communications satellites spontaneously combust?
There have now been press releases that confirm the statements made, and affirm the title.
It appears that the failure was in the second stage whilst the propellant was being loaded (well detailed above).[/QUOTE]
The satellite was already fueled with hydrazine and a number of people were speculating that there were some markers of hydrazine being the cause of the incident, especially since it is by far the most unstable fuel that would have been on the rocket. Obviously we now know that's not the case, but please, lets go full ex post facto.
[QUOTE=paindoc;50985543]Yeah there's no way it had much to do with the payload, at all. Anything it has to do with the payload is outside of the scope of our conjecture based on the information presently available to us. As noted, the payload stayed clamped to the strongback until after the rest of the rocket had pretty much vaporized under it.
So, that line of reasoning suggests one failed to even watch the video or read much of the news around this accident.[/QUOTE]
Or I posted that less than an hour after it happened when there was no video or news out around the accident?
SpaceX are a fairly fast moving company and quite open. Whatever the cause of the problem was I'm sure Musk will put up at least a brief description on Twitter.
It was caught on doppler radar:
[media]https://twitter.com/wxbrad/status/771340339751727104[/media]
[QUOTE=Zombii;50985584]The satellite was already fueled with hydrazine and a number of people were speculating that there were some markers of hydrazine being the cause of the incident, especially since it is by far the most unstable fuel that would have been on the rocket. Obviously we now know that's not the case, but please, lets go full ex post facto.
Or I posted that less than an hour after it happened when there was no video or news out around the accident?[/QUOTE]
welp, didn't see that and not sure why someone would've replied to that post then lol
[QUOTE=paindoc;50984638]big fucking insurance payout, but you lose fuckloads of time and ahve to go through the whole satellite construction process again, a large part of which is testing and safety checks before launch. The biggest cost really is time, and the difficulty of acquiring a launch slot in the first place.[/QUOTE]
They should go with Geico, save 15% or more on car, motorcycle, house, or satellite insurance.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;50984440]If it was a hydrazine explosion maybe people will start using our borane based hypergols.[/QUOTE]
borane based hypergols were a dead end, hydrazine has the best balance of all the traits needes in a monoprop/hypergol
its toxicity isnt so much of an issue for US rockets since its never used in first stages anymore as opposed to china who uses it for everything
[QUOTE=Sableye;50985772]borane based hypergols [B]were[/B] a dead end, hydrazine has the best balance of all the traits needes in a monoprop/hypergol
its toxicity isnt so much of an issue for US rockets since its never used in first stages anymore as opposed to china who uses it for everything[/QUOTE]
That was the case even four years ago, but we've made some breakthroughs. Our [URL="http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B35591"]amine-boranes outperform hydrazine[/URL].
Statement from House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin (R-Texas)
[url]https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-babin-statement-spacex-incident[/url]
[QUOTE=Sableye;50985772]borane based hypergols were a dead end, hydrazine has the best balance of all the traits needes in a monoprop/hypergol
its toxicity isnt so much of an issue for US rockets since its never used in first stages anymore as opposed to china who uses it for everything[/QUOTE]
It would probably be the best idea to move away from hypergols entirely. If only they weren't so good at moving rockets.
[QUOTE=Zombii;50985856]It would probably be the best idea to move away from hypergols entirely. If only they weren't so good at moving rockets.[/QUOTE]
Hypergols have their niche. Maneuvering thrusters and landing stages benefit a lot from their fast ignition (I'm surprised SpaceX has been pulling off landings with RP1+LOX). Apollo used it on the lander's departure stage because a failure to start would be fatal. I don't think they'll be used for primary booster engines simply due to cost (vs RP1+LOX) and inefficiency (vs LH2+LOX), but they shouldn't go away entirely.
SpaceX does use hypergols for the SuperDracos on the Dragon 2, though.
[QUOTE=Saxon;50984896]Maybe if you read the thread you'd realize
Over worked and underpaid employees don't always yield the best results[/QUOTE]
Well if that were completely the case then NASA shouldn't have rockets explode on the pad. Oh wait.
Shit happens. Things can go wrong no matter how many eyes look at it
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50986065]Well if that were completely the case then NASA shouldn't have rockets explode on the pad. Oh wait.
Shit happens. Things can go wrong no matter how many eyes look at it[/QUOTE]
In this case, I still think loading the payload early was a response to time pressures. Which cost spacex money and reputation.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;50985831]That was the case even four years ago, but we've made some breakthroughs. Our [URL="http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B35591"]amine-boranes outperform hydrazine[/URL].[/QUOTE]
unfortunately you cant run that through fuel cells though
Rocket failures never fail to be spectacular.
[video]https://youtu.be/Z9EnUQltR9A[/video]
[QUOTE=paindoc;50986116]In this case, I still think loading the payload early was a response to time pressures. Which cost spacex money and reputation.[/QUOTE]
SpaceX give the customer the option of not having it on during the static fire as we have seen quite a few times this year.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50986201]SpaceX give the customer the option of not having it on during the static fire as we have seen quite a few times this year.[/QUOTE]
source?
[QUOTE=paindoc;50986254]source?[/QUOTE]
I don't have one but just from following SpaceX launches for a long time I know that this is how it is. Off the top of my head the last one was jcsat 14 a couple of months ago:
[video]https://youtu.be/Wt6orQDqf4A[/video]
[QUOTE=Zombii;50985856]It would probably be the best idea to move away from hypergols entirely. If only they weren't so good at moving rockets.[/QUOTE]
Not all hypergols are bad though. A new one that's quite promising is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylammonium_nitrate"]Hydroxylammonium nitrate[/URL]. NASA is launching a demo mission for it next year and I believe OrbitalATK is establishing production capability for it.
e: HAN has better performance than hydrazine, it's non-toxic, and it produces non-toxic exhaust gasses.
Latest update:
[QUOTE]SpaceX has begun the careful and deliberate process of understanding the causes and fixes for yesterday's incident. We will continue to provide regular updates on our progress and findings, to the fullest extent we can share publicly.
We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6, and safely and reliably returning to flight to meet the demands of our customers is our chief priority. SpaceX's business is robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion. In the aftermath of yesterday's events, we are grateful for the continued support and unwavering confidence that our commercial customers as well as NASA and the United States Air Force have placed in us.
Overview of the incident:
- Yesterday, at SpaceX's Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an anomaly took place about [B]eight minutes in advance of a scheduled test firing[/B] of a Falcon 9 rocket.
- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle.
- This was part of a standard pre-launch static fire to demonstrate the health of the vehicle prior to an eventual launch.
- At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries.
To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency. These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA, the United States Air Force and other industry experts. We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds.
As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40. The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined. We will share more data as it becomes available. SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events. Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and [B]Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November[/B]. Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs.
Again, our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions with the Falcon 9. We will carefully and thoroughly investigate and address this issue.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates[/url]
Here's some clear pictures of the aftermath:
[thumb]https://i.imgur.com/tA6sAjq.jpg[/thumb]
More at [url]https://imgur.com/a/se8bK[/url]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50986065]Well if that were completely the case then NASA shouldn't have rockets explode on the pad. Oh wait.
Shit happens. Things can go wrong no matter how many eyes look at it[/QUOTE]
Funny because some of their greatest tragedies came from pressure and trying to make deadlines
Regardless it doesn't matter if it was the cause or not, its relevant to the discussion anyhow.
[editline]12th September 2016[/editline]
As for some real news, they're clueless as to how it happened and trying to recruit the public and some more experts to help out.
[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0911/SpaceX-needs-you-Musk-calls-on-public-government-in-explosion-probe[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.